Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
The review process took around two months but the editorial department was extremely fast. Once submitted, the manuscript was immediately sent out to the reviewers, following which it was under review for the specified period of time. After receiving minor revisions from the reviewers, the manuscript was accepted the day on which the revised manuscript was submitted to the editor. One of the reviewers asked insightful questions while the other was a bit confused about the nature of the work presented in the manuscript.
Motivation:
We decided to give sage open a try after having good experiences with other OA journals. Three months after submitting and still no editor assigned, we emailed sage and got stock "be patient replies" after asking to pull the submission, they assured us they would find a suitable editor ASAP and asked us to give them one more week. They finally found and editor a couple of week later, a few months later we got reviews and a minor revisions. Four months went by after submitting revisions and not hearing form them. After enquiring they told us the reviews were back a while ago, and the editor was overdue but was no longer responding to emails. After another few months of being given the run around we decided to bull the submission. This is one to stay away from.
Motivation:
Very disappointed with the editorial handling of this manuscript. It usually took ~2 weeks to pass the front office and reach the editor's desk. Then it took another ~2-4 weeks until the manuscript was sent out to reviewers. Add 8-12 weeks for reviews (which is fine). Rinse and repeat for 3 demanding revisions, and you end up needing 1.5 years just to get through peer review. When we had to contact the editor in between revisions, we would not get a response for weeks until we directly emailed them at their institutional address. Overall this process has been frustratingly slow - would not recommend.
Motivation:
Thorough reviews by clearly knowledgeable reviewers, who rated our paper not extensive and detailed enough, which might be true for a journal of ths reputation
Motivation:
The review process was long but it improved the ms
Motivation:
The Frontiers in Microbiology interactive review system is quite good. It allows exchanges between authors, editor and reviewers in a very dynamic way. The reviewer reports were also quite good and really helped improvng the manuscript. Manuscript handling time was also quite fast.
11.1 weeks
24.1 weeks
n/a
1 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
This manuscript was handled poorly by the previous editor but as of 2019, the new editor has been responsive and professional.
Motivation:
O processo editorial da Revista de Estudos Criminais é de qualidade, com celeridade e gentil atenção aos autores. A aprovação retornou em menos de 2 meses. Não recebi os pareceres integrais, mas somente pequenas sugestões formais de aprimoramento. Há revisão ortográfica por profissional. A editora envia um exemplar impresso ao autor. Recomendo a submissão para a revista.
Motivation:
Manuscript passed the "To Advisor" stage after initial submission and stayed "under considerations" with a given editor for few more days. In the end it was a standard desk rejection with the text below.
"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
"Because your manuscript was not given a high priority rating during the initial screening process, we have decided not to proceed to in-depth review. The overall view is that the scope and focus of your paper make it more appropriate for a more specialized journal. We are therefore notifying you so that you can seek publication elsewhere.
We now receive many more interesting papers than we can publish. We therefore send for in-depth review only those papers most likely to be ultimately published in Science. Papers are selected on the basis of discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals. Therefore, our decision is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations."
Motivation:
Publishing with Current Biology was a great experience. The editorial team was exceptionally helpful and very responsive. The reviews we received were critical yet thoughtful and constructive. Ultimately, our paper was available online within about 5.5 months from the original submission. I would definitely submit another manuscript here in the future.
Motivation:
The manuscript was suggested to be published in a more specialized journal.
Motivation:
We submitted a manuscript to this journal about microbial cell wall structure. The handling time of the manuscript was fast, which is the only positive remark we have about this experience. The quality of the reviewers reports was beyong abysmal. The manuscript was clearly handed to people who had very little experience in the subject area. They did not question any experimental aspect or the discussion of our data. We used biophysical methods and one reviewer actually used the phrase "Byophysical data do not have biological relevance", which is a very problematic remark. Said reviewer also couldn't be professional enough to phrase his feelings towards the manuscript in a polite manner, while displaying a very poor knowledge of our subject area's literature. Sadly, we were not given a right to respond to his comments, which would have been very easy to do. The manuscript is now published in a much better journal.
Motivation:
Expeditious, no-nonsense review process.
Motivation:
expeditious reviews with reasonable requests
Motivation:
Quick and reasonable reviews.
Motivation:
It was not clear whether the reviewers recommended rejection or major revisions. Both reviewers provided detailed assessment with the list of parts, which needed correction, which implied that major revisions was their preferred verdict. However, the Editor rejected the manuscript. The context implies that our methodology was the major issue, especially the absence of XRD and Raman spectral analysis.
Motivation:
The review process was of high quality and fair, but took a lot of time. It seemed they had difficulties finding reviewers. Even though the reviewers voted for "major revision", the resubmitted manuscript was treated as a new submission. Thus, the dates of submission and acceptance which are shown on the paper are actually only representing the time after the first round of reviews and are not reflecting the whole process.
Motivation:
The first round decision (i.e., from initial submission to the first round decision following reviews) did take a long time. The quality of the reviews varied, but it helped that the editor got 3 reviewers for my paper. I did get some good feedback and I think it was warranted to have 3 reviewers on this paper. Following the first round of reviews and decision, the length for the remainder of the process was mostly because I took the full time to submit revisions. The editor made timely decisions and also provided very helpful feedback and summaries of the 3 reviewers statements. I did not particularly like the delivery system for the reviews as some of the general fields are not all that helpful. The reviews did greatly improve my paper and I was very happy overall with the process. The process moves very quickly once the article is accepted, which is also very nice. I had a really great editor so that definitely made my experience very positive. It is also helpful that they have the waiver/fee assistance for graduate students that do not have funding to pay the open access/publication fee.
Motivation:
The review process was accurate and useful. The manuscript was carefully evaluated in every aspect by both the reviewers (which were extremely competent on the subject of the paper) and by the editor. This process greatly improved the manuscript.
Motivation:
Beyond the extremely long time it took the editor to make a decision on the paper, neither the editor nor his staff answered two messages during this long process when I inquired about the status of the paper. The interface showed that paper was "awaiting editorial decision" for many weeks and then the status changed to "awaiting reviewers selection" and then about a week later the editor suddenly informed me that he decided not to sent it to review and apologized for the long delay because he was traveling. This shows utter disregard to authors' time and I do not recommend submitting papers to this journal, despite its impact factor.
Motivation:
Overall it was a productive revision process. Revision took the apropriate time and comments were constructive. What we did not like about the revision process was Quality Check process. While quality check and copyright related comments from editorial team was meaningfull and helpfull, every time we adressed the manuscript quality related issue it took over a week, for manuscript to be processed further sometimes to another quality related matter that took another week for editorial team to review. It is understndable however, giving the high volume of publications Sci Rep is dealing with. We have never recived the reviewers responce after we sumitted revised manuscript just outright acceptance from the editor, even though from the manuscript status page we knew that manuscript went throug another peer review cycle.